Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that a token can be stored permanently via config header or used session-only, and that calling with no args returns a link for browser login. It does not contradict any annotation and enhances understanding of side effects beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but not overly terse—it packs the essential workflow into two sentences, front-loading the target audience and primary action. The options are clearly separated, and no redundant information is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description fully covers the expected inputs, behaviors, and outcomes (either a link or session authentication). It explains the permanent vs. session modes and the recommended config approach, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema only defines 'token' as an optional string with no description. The tool description fully compensates by explaining what the token is (JWT) and when it is used (after pasting), and also clarifies that omitting it triggers the link generation flow. This gives agents complete parameter semantics despite zero schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: authenticate to the MCP.AI server for IDE agents. It specifies the verb 'log in' and the resource (access token), and distinguishes itself from all sibling tools (which handle connectivity, marketplace, bug reports, etc.) by focusing solely on authentication.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains the two workflows (permanent via config header vs. session via token argument) and instructs to call with no args first to get the login link. This provides clear alternatives and prerequisites, effectively guiding agent invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.